Tuesday, February 13, 2007

NYT: Gordo still mistaking pistols for privates

Bush administration officials, intelligence analysts and some leading Democrats in Congress all agree that a particularly lethal class of roadside bomb is killing American troops at an increasing rate. But fissures have emerged as to whether senior leaders of Iran's government are directly involved in the attacks.

Before we go any further, there wasn't time to addres this in the snapshot yesterday but there's a talking point that keeps getting made and it's in the paragraph above as well. Are roadside bombs tossed in the air and bringing down US helicopters? No, that's not the case. Roadside bombs are on the road and they may strike their intended victims and they may not and they may strike someone else. Point? Iraqis are being killed by the same roadside bombs so where's the concern for them from the Bully Boy (or anyone else repeating the talking point)?

Back to the idiotic article where Gordo invites Marky along for some mutual war-on stroking:

Based on evidence gathered inside Iraq, American intelligence analysts have concluded that a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force is supplying Shiite groups with Iranian-designed weapons, called explosively formed penetrators.

No. Some analysts believe that and some do not. But when you've got a war to sell, you make it sound like there's 100% agreement among the analysts. It's lousy reporting but reporting's never been Gordo's strong suit.

Then it's time for the whispers. If the remarks were true, they'd be sourced to a name. They're not true. They are probably the same sources that Gordo used to scare America with lies about Iraq -- which, of course, proved not to be true as well.

Then, wading further in (wear boots), you get to this:

The assertion that senior Iranian leaders are linked to roadside bombings in Iraq carries echoes of American assessments of the Iran's role in the 1996 bombing of a housing complex in Saudi Arabia, an attack that killed 19 American servicemen.Government investigators said then that they had collected damning evidence linking Iran to the attack, and in 2001 Attorney General John Ashcroft said that Iranian officials "inspired, supported, and supervised members of Saudi Hezbollah" in the attack. But in the end, the American prosecutors stopped short of charging any Iranian officials in the attack.

Well there are two ways to look at the above: 1) the assertions couldn't be backed up or 2) John Aschroft (again) failed the American people. So which is it?

Gordo needs the release that more destruction can bring him. That doesn't make him a reporter, it just makes him someone addicted to war. Possibly, someday he will start The Michael Gordon Center as a place where other war addicts can seek treatment but today he's still deep in his disease.

Spoonfed's too busy singing the Traveling Willbury to notice much of anything ("I'm just glad to be here, happy to be alive"). Which is why he manages to 'report' (in his solo article) what was whispered in his ear by US officials but never note what appears in nearly every other report (on both sides of the Atlantic): If Moqtada al-Sadr has fled Iraq, it came after Nouri al-Maliki warned him that being friends with the puppet doesn't equal protectection.

It's a point that Michael Howard and Ewen MacAskill can make at the start of their piece but a point Spoonfed can't find (possibly all the baby food sliding down his chin keeps him too busy to look?). From "Cleric Sadr 'in Iran' ahead of Iraq crackdown" (Guardian of London):

The radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is said to have fled Iraq and sought shelter in Iran ahead of a US crackdown aimed at ending the violence in the country.Mr Sadr and his senior Mahdi army commanders left Baghdad two weeks ago after the prime minister, Nouri al Maliki, said he could not guarantee their safety, a senior Iraqi official said. The cleric is thought to be in Tehran, where he has family.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.